rrfan;1584772 wrote:I did and the answer is that she does not have to work to get what she wants. Nice place to live, food on the table, car to drive...not motivated to work. You can make minimum wage whatever you want to and it will not change that. Don't cut the gov't assistance off in a day, but there has to be a timeline so they know it will end.

I am not kidding with my question...I don't know what would motivate them. Money does not because they get what they want now and don't have to work 9-5 or more like most of us.

True support and opportunity does motivate them;\.
often it is events beyond their control, deindustrialization took away many real job opportunities, the Bush great recession pushed many back into poverty
but at other times government action has helped to pull people out
the New Deal raised many out of poverty
the great society for all the complaining about it made a large dent in the number living in poverty in America.

Raising minimum wage is not the answer. It would have more negative effects than positive. And if you are permanently working a minimum wage job, you're doing it wrong.

isadore;1584778 wrote:True support and opportunity does motivate them;\.
often it is events beyond their control, deindustrialization took away many real job opportunities, the Bush great recession pushed many back into poverty
but at other times government action has helped to pull people out
the New Deal raised many out of poverty
the great society for all the complaining about it made a large dent in the number living in poverty in America.

I guess we will just agree to not agree. I don't think making minimum wage $15 or whatever you want to will have the desired effect you are looking for. Minimum wage jobs will go down in volume due to having to pay the higher wage. I also don't see it really motivating someone who does not need to work to get what they need.

majorspark;1584776 wrote:The choice is not made in a vacuum of government. Policies enacted by government during war time can have an impact beyond the duration of the war. See the revenue acts of 1939 and 1954. The federal government is involved before and after the war. Excluding employer contributions and costs from taxation of income as a deductible business expense.

gosh a ruddies if the government had just taken over health care then we would be so much better off toady, cheaper costs, longer lifespans and lower infant mortality. If we just had not left it up to private business to provide, their cost of operating would even be lower.

WebFire;1584780 wrote:Raising minimum wage is not the answer. It would have more negative effects than positive. And if you are permanently working a minimum wage job, you're doing it wrong.

Bingo

I think we should eliminate welfare for anyone on it over a year and slash the minimum wage to $0. Anyone that is unable to care for their child serves a mandatory 10 year prison sentence with their children taken into protective custody.

sleeper;1584788 wrote:I think we should eliminate welfare for anyone on it over a year and slash the minimum wage to $0. Anyone that is unable to care for their child serves a mandatory 10 year prison sentence with their children taken into protective custody.

and thanks for adding nothing to the conversation!

rrfan;1584783 wrote:I guess we will just agree to not agree. I don't think making minimum wage $15 or whatever you want to will have the desired effect you are looking for. Minimum wage jobs will go down in volume due to having to pay the higher wage. I also don't see it really motivating someone who does not need to work to get what they need.

I think the rewards of opportunity and real reward would draw these folks back into the job market, if they are given support.

And we do need some balancing

"This is an attractive alternative right now, as the profit share of national income is at an all-time high while the compensation share is at a 50-year low."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jared-bernstein/minimum-wage-increase_b_3758960.html

workers need to be empowered.

WebFire;1584780 wrote:Raising minimum wage is not the answer. It would have more negative effects than positive. And if you are permanently working a minimum wage job, you're doing it wrong.

better they should not work at all?

isadore;1584795 wrote:I think the rewards of opportunity and real reward would draw these folks back into the job market, if they are given support.

And we do need some balancing

"This is an attractive alternative right now, as the profit share of national income is at an all-time high while the compensation share is at a 50-year low."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jared-bernstein/minimum-wage-increase_b_3758960.html

workers need to be empowered.

If you need someone else to make you feel empowered you will never succeed.

isadore;1584796 wrote:better they should not work at all?

No, they should be working. And working on bettering themselves instead of settling. But why do that when welfare keeps them from having to do so?

rrfan;1584797 wrote:If you need someone else to make you feel empowered you will never succeed.

they can be empowered through unions and they can be empowered through political action

Actually, a lot of the situation would improve if welfare recipients had to work for their benefits (if they don't have a job).

isadore;1584800 wrote:they can be empowered through unions and they can be empowered through political action

WTF?

WebFire;1584799 wrote:No, they should be working. And working on bettering themselves instead of settling. But why do that when welfare keeps them from having to do so?

gosh a ruddies lets get those kids who make up the majority of tanf recipients back in the factories like in the good old days.
lets send their mom's out at a minimum wage at an unlivable level,

WebFire;1584801 wrote:Actually, a lot of the situation would improve if welfare recipients had to work for their benefits (if they don't have a job).

and what do you want to do with their kids

oh that's right
back to the factories and the mines

WebFire;1584802 wrote:WTF?

to undo 30 plus years of Reaganomics.
This is an attractive alternative right now, as the profit share of national income is at an all-time high while the compensation share is at a 50-year low.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jared-bernstein/minimum-wage-increase_b_3758960.html

isadore;1584800 wrote:they can be empowered through unions and they can be empowered through political action

This has to be a joke right? You can not be serious!

Time... Time limit is the motivator
When my mom and I lived on welfare, public housing project she set a time (goal) that we would move from this situation to a better life.
Many on welfare, public housing have no aspiration to improve their situation because they have a crutch with no obligations to keep the benefits … with not “time restrictions”

Let give the needy the support but with the goal to achieve dependency .. “Time Limit”

Time to get a job, time to get a education or training, to move to a better job location, time to straighten their lives, time to evaluate their decision, time to understand that more babies does not increase the time for achieving the goal of bettering yourself. …. The poor got 5 or 6 years to get off welfare and move out of public housing and 1 year after that of the government paying their utilities. …. Have a good life

If the habitual poor choose to squander this opportunity … sorry they are on their own now…

Solution you’ll lose the kids … the kids will be place in a government reform school (cheaper than a life time of entitlement programs) where they will be given care, medical attention, a education, structure, discipline and potential future more that what their dead beat habitual loser parent could offer.
My estimate is that 25 years down the road … poverty will drop, higher standard of society will develop, less crime, drop out rate will fall, teen pregnant drop, unwed poor pregnant decline and government welfare programs cost will begin dropping.

Hope this helps…

Belly35;1584832 wrote:Time... Time limit is the motivator
When my mom and I lived on welfare, public housing project she set a time (goal) that we would move from this situation to a better life.
Many on welfare, public housing have no aspiration to improve their situation because they have a crutch with no obligations to keep the benefits … with not “time restrictions”

Let give the needy the support but with the goal to achieve dependency .. “Time Limit”

Time to get a job, time to get a education or training, to move to a better job location, time to straighten their lives, time to evaluate their decision, time to understand that more babies does not increase the time for achieving the goal of bettering yourself. …. The poor got 5 or 6 years to get off welfare and move out of public housing and 1 year after that of the government paying their utilities. …. Have a good life

If the habitual poor choose to squander this opportunity … sorry they are on their own now…

Solution you’ll lose the kids … the kids will be place in a government reform school (cheaper than a life time of entitlement programs) where they will be given care, medical attention, a education, structure, discipline and potential future more that what their dead beat habitual loser parent could offer.
My estimate is that 25 years down the road … poverty will drop, higher standard of society will develop, less crime, drop out rate will fall, teen pregnant drop, unwed poor pregnant decline and government welfare programs cost will begin dropping.

Hope this helps…

Exactly! Motivation...see how that works isadore?

rrfan;1584794 wrote:and thanks for adding nothing to the conversation!

I was providing a solution to the problem rather than just whining about the situation like yourself. Carry on.

isadore;1584693 wrote:Businesses chose to take on that responsibility starting during WWII. They became the major provider of healthcare for working people as part of their terms of employment.

Business chose to offer it as part of compensation. That doesn't put the onus on them to provide it. ...at least until the affordable care act. In addition, it's not the only means of paying for medical services. It's just one.

Con_Alma;1584935 wrote:Business chose to offer it as part of compensation. That doesn't put the onus on them to provide it. ...at least until the affordable care act. In addition, it's not the only means of paying for medical services. It's just one.

Name alone makes me LOL. Affordable care act...nothing affordable about it.

rrfan;1584820 wrote:This has to be a joke right? You can not be serious!

I am serious.

isadore;1584995 wrote:I am serious.

isadore, why do you think you are poor?